Musar על פסחים 118:13

והנותרת ממנה יאכלו אהרן ובניו . The reason that the priests must consume the remainder of the קרבן מנחה after the קומץ (less than a handful) has been burned on the altar is to teach us that even when a poor person brings an עולה ויורד offering, i.e. some baked material instead of the animals that a rich person would have to bring to atone for a similar sin, the partnership between the priest and the owner of the offering remains the same; the priest's eating contributes to the atonement to be received by the owner of the sacrifice. It is assumed that the priests will bless the owner at the time they consume their part of the offering. This is why 5,11 specifically states that the priest must treat such an offering as if it were a מנחה. A poor person would be upset if he were to think that most of his offering would simply be thrown away.

Commandment 103 commands the priests to eat part of the flesh of certain offerings such as various kinds of sin-offerings. The Torah says: "They shall eat of the meat which has served as their atonement" (29,33). Our sages comment on this that the atonement for the owners of these offerings becomes only complete once the priests who have performed the sacrificial service have eaten from them (Pesachim 59).

The other verse which describes these teeth as similar to עדר הקצובות refers to the reading of the Torah in its divisions during the week. We read i.e. “call up” 7 people on Sabbath mornings, 3 at the afternoon service, and 3 each on Mondays and Thursdays. This makes a total of 16. The word הקצובות, refers to those readings that are “fixed,” i.e. repeated each and every week. It follows that a person has to be careful to keep his teeth holy, seeing that he needs them to read the portions from the Holy Torah. On the other hand, when dealing with the actual Temple service, the Priests ate (with their teeth), whereas the owners of the animals that had been offered received their atonement. The Israelites who did not employ their teeth wholesomely, died as atonement for having abused their teeth in this fashion.

I have already alluded earlier to the reason the High Priest has to eat part of the meat of the sacrifices. I will here add another mystical dimension to this requirement. It is all connected with the first statement in the Book of Leviticus about the nature of animal sacrifice, i.e. אדם כי יקריב מכם, that the soul of a person is transferred to the animal he offers as a sacrifice or has the priest offer on his behalf. When the priests eat, they absorb the souls of the owners of the sacrifices for whom they seek atonement. This is achieved through eating of the animals which had been appointed as a substitute for the person offering the animal to G–d.

Behold, for the man sanctified with the holiness of his Creator, even his physical deeds become actual matters of holiness. A sign of this is in "the eating of temple offerings", which our sages of blessed memory said: "the priests eat and the owners obtain atonement" (Pesachim 59b).

Rabbeinu Yonah holds that wine in its fourth year, after redemption, requires a benediction as a matter of biblical law, both before and after one has drunk it. He bases this on the word הלולים, in the plural. A drunk person is not allowed to recite such a benediction. By reciting a benediction one "redeems" the wine from its גלגול, its need to be rehabilitated. The author, basing himself on some works of the Arizal, describes the benediction recited by the owners of the sacrifices who eat part thereof as crucial to the process of "the priests perform the service, whereas the owners eat in order to bring about effective atonement." The injunction not to eat of the sacrificial meat prematurely, i.e. before the blood has been sprinkled on the altar by the priests (19,26), also contains allusions to this process. The allusions to transmigration of the soul are found in Job 33,29 where hope is held out that a person who has not fulfilled his task on earth may be given a second or even a third chance to do so. We may see a similar allusion in the legislation of נותר, which follows the legislation that meat of the peace-offerings may be eaten on two days and the intervening night, i.e. during a maximum of three time periods. This alludes to the three opportunities given to the soul (personality) to redeem itself within the body of a person while on earth. When the Torah says in 19,8: ואכליו עונו ישא, "that anyone who consumes such sacrificial meat after the deadline has expired will bear his sin," the idea is that he will no longer qualify for atonement. The statement by Hillel in Avot 1,14 –If I am not for myself, who is? If I am only concerned with myself what kind of a person am I? If not now when?" – may also be read as an allusion to the statement in the Talmud concerning the validity or invalidity of the repentance of a person who says: “I shall sin since I will have a chance to rehabilitate myself (on the Day of Atonement, Yuma 86), or, in a transmigration of my soul!" Anyone who ever had such thoughts during his life on earth will not be permitted to rehabilitate in such a way, for surely he will not be granted a second round on earth. Pardes Rimonim deals with this problem in his chapter on the soul. The author explains that the contribution one's friend or associate can make to one's own rehabilitation is extremely limited; this is why Hillel stresses that what one does not do for oneself no one else is going to do for one. On the other hand, if one attempts to achieve one's rehabilitation by one's own efforts, not relying on other factors, one will experience that G–d extends one a great amount of help, similar to what David said in Psalms 31,20: "How abundant is the good that You have in store for those who fear You!" One will realize then that one's own contribution was really major, that G–d appreciated it. The rhetorical question: "What am I?" must be understood in the sense that I grew to realize my importance in the eyes of G–d. This is the deeper meaning of 19,5: לרצונכם, "to your satisfaction."

I believe we can use this explanation to answer a difficulty which arises from Exodus 29,33: "These things shall be eaten only by those for whom expiation has been made with them when they were ordained and consecrated; they may not be eaten by a layman for they are holy." The meaning of the verse is that the owners of the animals receive their expiation through the priests' eating. The difficulty is that Aaron and his sons consumed these parts while being owners, whereas Moses was the priest performing the sacrificial service described in the relevant section of the Torah. We can only answer this by viewing Aaron and his sons as being both priests and owners at one and the same time. They had become priests by the very fact that Moses "sacrificed them," i.e. בקרבתם לה' coming close to G–d. They became similar to the archangel Michael who, in his capacity as Celestial High Priest, offers the souls of the righteous as a sacrifice. We find an allusion to this comparison between the task of Aaron and that of the archangel מיכאל in (9,4) כי היום י-ה-ו-ה נראה אליכם where we have the letters of the names of Aaron and מיכאל side by side in the last two words of the verse. In comparison to Moses, Aaron and his two sons were indeed the owners of the sacrifices (מילואים), seeing that Moses at that time occupied a position even higher than that of the High Priest. The reason for this was that Moses had never been a זר, mundane person, and did not have to be raised to his spiritually elevated position as did his brother Aaron. We have explained that he was holy from the moment he left his mother's womb and how the whole house was filled with light at that time. To repeat, in respect to the מילואים Aaron and his sons were both owners and priests. Because this is so the religious ruling for all future generations evolved that by the priests eating the parts of the sacrifice allotted to them the owners obtain forgiveness.